Theathers, operas and ballets are often funded or at least substituted by the government, as culture wouldn’t be able to support itself. How to define culture events then? Hollywood movies are commercial, thus not every one of them a commercial success. But there is also something in between. Movies such as David Lynch’s Inland Empire and Mulholland Drive are arguable arts, yet commercial success stories.
A piece of art might turn out to be profitable. Thus not all the commercial intensions turn cash flowing successes. Outside the Hollywood hills profitable “arts” might be scarcity, but those exist. Take the Bolshoi Ballet in Moscow, Vienna Philharmonic orchestra, or fine art names as Manolo Valdes, Salvador Dali or Andy Warhol. Big brands - this case most traditional or shocking brands rule. But also profitable names need to pleasure the audience - the revenue source. And we have seen to what it leads: Hollywoodication of copy-paste movies and television shows.
Might be a time for a debate, but government art support are necesity to keep the art alive. Whether art is biased by commerce or government, there always will be the rebellious ones.
I was reading a really interesting book about the economics of arts and culture. The authors (Baumol and Bowen, 1966) have noted that live shows are fairly insensitive to the technological progress and to the resulting increase in productivity. Performing a play nowadays requires approximately the same inputs that were necessary at Shakespeare’s times: a theater, scenography, technical staff and actors.
If the wage of the artists was calculated on the basis of the average wage that other workers earn in other sectors, the price of the theater tickets would increase much more than the price of other goods or services that benefit from increasing productivity, with the associated risk that the demand would decline dramatically. If instead the artists were paid on the basis of their productivity, today they would earn the same wage that they would have earned at Shakespeare’s times, becoming one of the poorest social classes. This dilemma is avoided because usually governments could pay part of the costs.
However, the public intervention could create distortions in the natural evolution of the supply of cultural and art goods. In fact it might happen that, to obtain funding, the artists would tend to produce something than the politicians, rather than the public, would like.
Latest Comments
RSSNo comments